Dubstepforum.com

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 5:58 pm**

fassyman wrote:just google imaged him and every single one of his paintings look the same

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... 8QPekpn3Cg

I've seen more detail in paintings made by 4 year olds.

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 6:01 pm**

Gewze wrote:
capo ultra wrote:
Gewze wrote:art should be something a usual person couldn't do without practise/teaching.
why?
because its art, its interesting and different and shows feelings. i wouldnt want to look at something i could paint/sculp/draw nor would i want to listen to something with a kick, a snare and 1 symbol through out.

everything is beautiful

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 6:20 pm**

Gewze wrote:
capo ultra wrote:
Gewze wrote:art should be something a usual person couldn't do without practise/teaching.
why?
because its art, its interesting and different and shows feelings. i wouldnt want to look at something i could paint/sculp/draw nor would i want to listen to something with a kick, a snare and 1 symbol through out.

tbf id probs be more impressed if it was on a harder medium

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 6:28 pm**

I quite like it, but I definitely wouldn't pay for it. Don't see the fuzz about paying for it. It's their money, let them spend it the way they want.

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 7:07 pm**

Gewze wrote:it is shit though. art should be something a usual person couldn't do without practise/teaching. i could draw 3 rectangles and paint them at the end of the day. (''then why didnt you'') because theres no skill in that and if i wanted to paint something it'd be more intricate.

following that logic progressive metal and dream theater is ultimate music? if skill is the basis on which art should be judged then surely it is.
art should be about expressing feelings, expressing something. skill has nothing to do with it. a cheap, lo-fi synth over a simple drumbeat (say, hype williams' tracks for instance) may be enough for me to get shivers while overly technical music bores me to death. likewise rothko touches me a lot more than the most skillful victorian painting. art is not about doing things other people cannot do because they aren't skilled enough.

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 7:09 pm**

noam wrote:kids on an electronic music forum complaining about the aesthetic value of art...

lol

and probably some of these same kids gasping about the price would drop a nice chunk of change on an original dmz 12" if a collector...

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 7:56 pm**

Saw this (or similar. honestly, who can tell the difference

) at the tate modern a few years ago - they'd hung it the wrong way round. Oh how we lol'd..... quietly of course, we're not philistines.

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 8:12 pm**

The Card Players by Paul Cezzane, which is the most expensive painting ever sold.

The Rothko does more for me.

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 8:17 pm**

Yeah, I can't really find a good link as to why to post this but...

I could sit and look at this for hours. Big up the National gallery!

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2012 8:22 am**

Can someone explain to me the merits of that type of art? Is the whole point of it to annoy people because it seems so thoughtless and simple? A bit like punk?

I just don't get it.

I feel like Carl Pilkington.

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2012 8:25 am**

karmacazee wrote:Can someone explain to me the merits of that type of art? Is the whole point of it to annoy people because it seems so thoughtless and simple? A bit like punk?

I just don't get it.

I feel like Carl Pilkington.

Like punk? Fuck you.

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2012 8:29 am**

kirky wrote:i don't care who it's by, it looks shit.

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2012 9:49 am**

karmacazee wrote:Can someone explain to me the merits of that type of art? Is the whole point of it to annoy people because it seems so thoughtless and simple? A bit like punk?

I just don't get it.

Like I said, it's kind of like very deep dub techno, or really minimal ambient drone - there's not very much action but when you're stood in front of the canvas there's a kind of weird sense of depth and atmosphere and you can just sort of get lost in it in a meditative sort of way. Something about the colours and the texture just sort of draw you in.

And looking at jpegs of Rothko paintings on the internet is like listening to Basic Channel on phone speakers on the bus. And like Basic Channel you might say "yeah, I can set up a 4x4 kick drum, a bassline and the occasional synth whoosh and let it play out for ten minutes" but it's 99.999% certain that if you did it wouldn't sound as good as Basic Channel.

Come meditate pon the orange square is what I'm saying I guess.

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2012 10:03 am**

slothrop wrote:
karmacazee wrote:Can someone explain to me the merits of that type of art? Is the whole point of it to annoy people because it seems so thoughtless and simple? A bit like punk?

I just don't get it.
Like I said, it's kind of like very deep dub techno, or really minimal ambient drone - there's not very much action but when you're stood in front of the canvas there's a kind of weird sense of depth and atmosphere and you can just sort of get lost in it in a meditative sort of way. Something about the colours and the texture just sort of draw you in.

And looking at jpegs of Rothko paintings on the internet is like listening to Basic Channel on phone speakers on the bus. And like Basic Channel you might say "yeah, I can set up a 4x4 kick drum, a bassline and the occasional synth whoosh and let it play out for ten minutes" but it's 99.999% certain that if you did it wouldn't sound as good as Basic Channel.

Come meditate pon the orange square is what I'm saying I guess.

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2012 10:13 am**

Yeah it is a tad ironic that this being torn to shreds on a forum dedicated to minimalistic, sparse music that deviates widely from tradition by way of structure and lack of melody.

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2012 2:02 pm**

Mark Rothko is amazing....

I went to a complete retrospective of his and I was blown away...

To be able to see his decent into depression and suicide through the use of colors was sad and incredible..

You really can't get the scope of his work online because the size is wrong...
You have to be completely engulfed in the colors to get it...

It's like someone exposing you - photographically - to the light of the day - every single day..

but only it may or may not be real light - but light as it is from inside of him....

very personal and very psychological...

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2012 2:41 pm**

I don't like him much but at the tate modern they have a room full of his, or they did when I went there anyway. And I agree with the people here who have said it's different when you see them in the flesh, they are massive, deep and meditative, like the obelisk in 2001 you just sink into them.

However he is a complete joker, he had one idea and did it to death, and if he never existed sooner or later someone else would have done exactly the same thing, it was a natural obvious progression that art was heading towards, his paintings were inevitable, like I bet someone did completely black paintings or completely blank canvas,

matthew collings description of Rothkos is the best, probably (after about 7 minutes)

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2012 3:19 pm**

Johnlenham wrote:Is this the same guys work the caused such an uproar at the time that someone attacked one of his paintings with an axe?

Might be wrong, but that might be Malevich's 'Black Square'

cityzen wrote:Yeah, I can't really find a good link as to why to post this but...

I could sit and look at this for hours. Big up the National gallery!

Turner

(Is a pretty stupid amount of money though...)

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2012 3:40 pm**

Stiletto Feel wrote:
Johnlenham wrote:Is this the same guys work the caused such an uproar at the time that someone attacked one of his paintings with an axe?
Might be wrong, but that might be Malevich's 'Black Square'

cityzen wrote:Yeah, I can't really find a good link as to why to post this but...

I could sit and look at this for hours. Big up the National gallery!
Turner

(Is a pretty stupid amount of money though...)

gotta love turner

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2012 3:51 pm**

arktrix wrote:
wub wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/ ... ecord.html

The large-scale work soared to $86,882,500, breaking the artist's record of $72.84 million and eclipsing the $86.3 million paid for Francis Bacon's 'Triptych', 1976, in 2008 as the most expensive post-war artwork at auction.

Um...whut?
Dun kno the chicken tonight sizzle n stir jar!

hilarious

Dubstepforum.com

Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...